Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen
[Argumentation in Context 17] 2019
► pp. 195–210

Chapter 11
“Argumentexturing”

A framework for integrating theories of argumentation and learning

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A view from learning theory
  • 3.A view from argumentation theory
  • 4.Two examples of argumentative interactions in learning situations
    • 4.1The first case: A course based on hot discussions on controversial issues
    • 4.2The second case: Debate and group creativity training
    • 4.3Synthesis of the two cases
  • 5.Concluding discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.11bak
References (47)
References
Allwood, J., Traum, D., & Jokinen, K. (2000). Cooperation, dialogue and ethics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(6), 871–914. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. J. (2014). Arguing to Learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 439–460). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Van der Puil, C. (2011). Socio-cognitive tension in collaborative working relations. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Saljo (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 222–242). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Badke‐Schaub, P., Goldschmidt, G., & Meijer, M. (2010). How does cognitive conflict in design teams support the development of creative ideas? Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 119–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In P. Coirier, & J. Andriessen (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar
(2015a). The integration of pragma-dialectics and collaborative learning research: dialogue, externalisation and collective thinking. In F. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Scrutinizing argumentation in practice (pp. 175–199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). Collaboration in collaborative learning. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 16(3), 451–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., & Järvelä, S. (2013). Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. J., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 31–63). Amsterdam: Pergamon / Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, L. (2001). The internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.) (1999). Collaboration learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam: PergamonGoogle Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann, & H. Spada (Eds.) , Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of logical operations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 367–383. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht-Holland: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., & Baker, M. J. (2018). Striking a balance: Argumentation and socio-emotional processes in collaborative learning interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Cody, R., Stephenson, B. H., Horst, H., & Perkel, D. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. MIT press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological science, 22 (4), 545–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinas, E. (1983). Le temps et l’autre, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Saljo, R. (Eds.) 2011. Learning across sites: new tools, infrastructures and practices.London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mevarech, Z. R., & Light, P. H. (1992). Peer-based interaction at the computer: Looking backward, looking forward. Learning and Instruction, 2, 275–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. (2012). Accountable talk: Classroom conversation that works. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Mougenot, C., Détienne, F., Pennington, M., Baker, M., Corvin, T., Veyrier, C.-A., Arai, K., & Huron, S. (2017). Tensions in creativity workshops. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2017 (ECCE 2017). ACM, New York, NY, USA (pp. 93–100). DOI logo
Muller, M. N., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2009). Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muntig, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument: elements of applied semantics. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Nonnon, E. (1996). Activités argumentatives et élaboration de connaissances nouvelles: le dialogue comme espace d’exploration [Argumentative activities and elaboration of new knowledge: dialogue as a space of exploration]. Langue Française, 112, 67–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogan, A., Finkelstein, S., Walker, E., Carlson, R., & Cassell, J. (2012). Rudeness and rapport: Insults and learning gains in peer tutoring. In S. A. Cerri, W. J. Clancey, G. Papadourakis, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2012 conference on Intelligent tutoring systems, Vol. 7315 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 11–21). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1964). Six Études de Psychologie [Six studies in psychology]. Paris: Éditions Denoël.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J. (2015). Sur l’adéquation des théories de l’argumentation aux sciences de l’apprentissage et les fondements d’une théorie de « l’argumentissage ». In N. Muller Mirza, & C. Buty (Éds.), L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation (pp. 269–322). Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2017). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,Google Scholar
Sitri, F. (2003). L’objet du débat : La construction des objets de discours dans des situations argumentatives orales [The object of debate: The construction of discursive objects in oral argumentative situations]. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Slakmon, B., & Schwarz B. B. (2019). Democratization and education: Conditions and technology for dialogic transformative political education. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The routledge international handbook on dialogic education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wegerif, R. (2017). Introduction. Education, technology and democracy: Can internet-mediated education prepare the ground for a future global democracy?. Civitas educationis. Education, Politics, and Culture, 6(1), 17–35.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Baker, Michael J., Baruch B. Schwarz & Sten R. Ludvigsen
2021. Educational dialogues and computer supported collaborative learning: critical analysis and research perspectives. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 16:4 ► pp. 583 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.